One of the things that I have observed over the past year (the six months leading up to the presidential election, and the six months since,) is that regardless of the nature of the issue in question, I have seen more politicians throw common sense out the window and oppose what the other side is saying simply because it is the other party that is saying it.
It's kind of like that Penn & Teller gag where Penn goes on a college campus with a petition asking the kids to sign it in order to ban a substance "found in hydrochloric acid, a component of smog, the cause of thousands of deaths every year: hydrogen hydroxide." They got hundreds of signatures. Little did the kids realize they were signing a petition to ban water.
Not to argue the points of Bush's proposal to allow voluntary participation in privatization of social security, but this issue is one that I have seen a lot of "no, no, no" from the national democrat leaders. I have heard them claim that it will cut benefits to seniors, that the poor will suffer, and that we need more social programs, not less. I didn't know a voluntary program would do such things. It would seem that it is not the nature of the proposal that is the issue here (although I'm sure there are several other points that many would like to discuss,) but it looks more like these national democrats are more concerned with the fact that it is republicans that are offering it.
The filibustering of judges was thought to be wrong by Harry Reid just three years ago, but now, since republicans are opposing it (just to allow the Senate to vote on nominees that the president made,) now the democrats are for filibusters and want to keep them.
Yes there is more there than just "you say yes, I say no" but what I don't understand is why there can't be logical discussion of the issues by these leaders. Republicans pushed for ethics rules changes; democrats said no; Frist said let's go back to the old rules so we can get the ethics committee started and get things going; democrats said no. See what I mean?
The liberal element of today's DNC needs to understand they are killing their party; the party that my father supported for decades. (He said he couldn't vote for Kerry.) The party that used to identify with many Americans. As they distance themselves more and more from reality, they will find themselves more and more in the minority.
Conservative democrats: unite!
Until next time...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
You're right. Filibusters make democrats look petty. I would also like to see Dems come up with an alternative. Unless I am missing something (I very well may be), the only to fix SS is to tax future generations or at least consider private accounts. I dont believe congress pays into SS. Dont they have a private account set up for themselves? Or am I wrong about that?
All members of congress get a HUGE pension when they get out...even if it's just one term. Of course, the longer they stay, the better the payout, I think. They don't have to worry about social security as much; perhaps they are not as motivated. Their pension will serve them well in the many years ahead.
Maybe we should introduce a bill to take that perk away from all members of congress who filibuster? That might work... :)
Spongeblog: How do private accounts fix Social Security?
Spongemeister, it's all yours...
I'm not sure if the Sponge is going to respond or not, so Sponge, if you would like to, feel free to write your own retort.
I do have one of my own, of course, being the talkative sort that I am.
To "fix" social security would take a total revamping of the way its done. So, perhaps a better way to put it would be, to "stop the large hemorrhage from the already overburdened and often stolen from social security system" why not use private accounts?
Instead of letting the government keep our money in very low-yield (or no yield) situations over the years, why not take some of our money out, invest it in something fairly conservative, so that the growth over one's lifetime would be 5 or 10 times as much as what social security would be able to pay during that time? This accomplished two things: One, the taxpayer gets MORE money back (partly from his/her private account and partly from S/S) and two, the government doesn't have as much money to pay out (or as big a tempting pot to steal from.)
Businesses do this all the time. (I believe Rush exposed two liberal organizations that were trashing Bush for his proposals on S/S, and all of their top leaders had private accounts just like this.)
Anyway...private accounts would be one way that social security could get a little "boost" if you will in its life-expectancy, and would allow more time for more positive changes to be made.
Sponge, if I said anything you would not have, let me have it:
And how do you plan to expend the millions and millions of dollars it would take (even under Republican proposals) to shift to that plan? Borrow the money? Or if not that, exactly how, specifically?
Millions and millions?
I have not heard THAT much. I would have to see the proposal in order to evaluate it.
I agree that SS is your money and I would like people t have a choice about what to do with it, in a perfect world. However, what happens to the people who invest their money poorly and lose it all? They will be destitute and living on the streets. I think we should all look to Great Britain to see what happens when we privatize SS because that is exactly what they did, and whe people's investments weren't wise ones, they lose all their money and became homeless!
I know Bush isn't proposing this opportunity as a mandatory thing for everyone, and if people don't want to, they won't have to, but often I find that people with little knowledge of what they are doing make the biggest blunders. If people blow their SS and have absolutely nothing, what will we do? We will either have to turn a blind eye to elderly on the streets, or our goverment will have to foot the bill for them anyway, thereby fixing their mistakes. What will happen then? That is exactly what happened in the UK, and I don't see why the same wouldn't happen here. What do you think?
Post a Comment